'Gay Baby' Article Angers Both Sides

the most obvious solution is to have mandatory nationwide testing to determine whether or not prospective parents have the possiblity of producing homosexual offspring and have them sterilized
 
Hey, what do you know: a good old-fashioned eugenicist.
You don't see many of those nowadays.

And by old-fashioned I mean pseudoscientitific, naturally.
 
that's ridiculous. here's a point that wasn't mentioned... why waste millions on research for something as useless as this when it could instead be spent on something useful to the human race, like stem cells or other cures for cancer, or other *real* genetic disease research. idiots.
 
GAH! A religious leader FINALLY embraces the idea that homosexuality is biologically-based... and then concludes that we should stop it in the womb. What a f*cking idiot.
 
Wow. Just WOW at the voting results:

In your view, is homosexuality immoral?
No 56%
Yes 44%

In your view, is homosexuality a matter of biology, or choice?
Biology 51%
Choice 34%
Not sure 15%

I thought the numbers would be much better than this...
 
**** eugenics, i wonder if that rat bastard hate machine understands the scope of what he's promoting
 
I wish they could identify tendancy towards religious nuttism before birth, so they could stop it at the womb.
 
haha, picture a pill that would do that...

seeadinknrun, 1 pill at night
 
*Awaiting the arrival of apologists saying he's only a member of the evangelical fringe, then watching his ideas penetrate the mainstream over the following months or years.*
 
I asked this question a long time ago, and was ridiculed. Seems like the right time to ask it again. Rather than prenatal treatment, what if people decided to abort babies carrying the gay gene? Would choice not apply in that situation? After all, it's a woman's right to choose no matter what, right?
 
Hapless said:
I asked this question a long time ago, and was ridiculed. Seems like the right time to ask it again. Rather than prenatal treatment, what if people decided to abort babies carrying the gay gene? Would choice not apply in that situation? After all, it's a woman's right to choose no matter what, right?
Click to expand...

A woman's right is a woman's right, she should be able to do as she pleases, no exceptions. But, I see absolutely no reason why someone should abort a child on that premise alone. Does she find being genetically predetermined immoral?
 
brink's said:
A woman's right is a woman's right, she should be able to do as she pleases, no exceptions. But, I see absolutely no reason why someone should abort a child on that premise alone. Does she find being genetically predetermined immoral?
Click to expand...

no exceptions, but?
 
No. no exceptions PERIOD. I just think it would be stupid to abort a fetise on it's future sexual orientation alone, that doesn't mean i can make decisions for other people.
 
So are you saying it's also a woman's right to choose to genetically alter her fetus while it is still in the womb?
 
Absinthe said:
Meaning you could do it, but you'd be a ****ing retard for doing so.
Click to expand...

So aborting a fetus out of convenience is fine, and you are not a retard for doing so, but aborting one because it might turn out to be gay makes you a retard? Fascinating.
 
God, I hate humans, with a ****ing passion. I'm going to mars, l8z.
 
Hapless said:
So aborting a fetus out of convenience is fine, and you are not a retard for doing so, but aborting one because it might turn out to be gay makes you a retard? Fascinating.
Click to expand...

In my opionion....yes. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be able to make her own decisions.

BTW, i can't see any conceivable reason to abort a child you would otherwise have purely on it's sexual orientation. It's no better then aborting a child for carrying the balding gene.
 
Hapless said:
So aborting a fetus out of convenience is fine, and you are not a retard for doing so, but aborting one because it might turn out to be gay makes you a retard? Fascinating.
Click to expand...

Good job sticking words into my mouth. Bonus points for not having a clue.

Aborting an unwanted fetus because you are unable to support or care for it is understandable. I hate it when people use words like "convenience", as if the decision was as trivial as flipping a coin. In any case, it's grounded in real world practicality.
Aborting a fetus because it will be homosexual is indicative of majorly skewed worldviews and prejudices. Money and shelter isn't an issue. You don't want your bouncing baby boy to eventually have sex with another man. If the decision to abort isn't fueled by outright irrational hatred, then it's out of some warped notion of mercy.

I'll actually be honest (instead of pretending to be some prick holding a trump card AKA you) and say that I'm not sure how this should be approached from a legal standpoint. The cold hard reality is that if people can legally terminate fetuses, then I can't see a reason why their alteration would be prohibited. Undoubtedly a case could be made from the inevitable human result (whereas there is no such thing with abortion), but I don't know how effectively.

At the very least, it would be something akin to religious faith and the way it should be treated: not illegal, but heavily frowned upon and marginalized at every conceivable turn.

ADDED: I can't even imagine what kind of demographic would do this any way, aside from loonies. Homophobia is prominently tied to religions fundamentalism, which is predominantly pro-life. Basically, I can only see this appealing to religious nuts, and even they would be reluctant.
 
Absinthe said:
ADDED: I can't even imagine what kind of demographic would do this any way, aside from loonies. Homophobia is prominently tied to religions fundamentalism, which is predominantly pro-life. Basically, I can only see this appealing to religious nuts, and even they would be reluctant.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Absinthe said:
Good job sticking words into my mouth. Bonus points for not having a clue.

Aborting an unwanted fetus because you are unable to support or care for it is understandable. I hate it when people use words like "convenience", as if the decision was as trivial as flipping a coin. In any case, it's grounded in real world practicality.
Aborting a fetus because it will be homosexual is indicative of majorly skewed worldviews and prejudices. Money and shelter isn't an issue. You don't want your bouncing baby boy to eventually have sex with another man. If the decision to abort isn't fueled by outright irrational hatred, then it's out of some warped notion of mercy.

I'll actually be honest (instead of pretending to be some prick holding a trump card AKA you) and say that I'm not sure how this should be approached from a legal standpoint. The cold hard reality is that if people can legally terminate fetuses, then I can't see a reason why their alteration would be prohibited. Undoubtedly a case could be made from the inevitable human result (whereas there is no such thing with abortion), but I don't know how effectively.

At the very least, it would be something akin to religious faith: not illegal, but heavily frowned upon and marginalized at every conceivable turn.
Click to expand...

Ah, I'm pretending to be a prick holding a trump card. Nice. It is a vslid question, and obviously you in all your wisdom don't have an answer to it. The fact is, you can't square your belief that a woman has an absolute right to do with her body as she pleases with the possibility that she might use that right to do something you disagree with.

Really, the question cuts both ways. Would religious fundamentalists who are pro-life tend to allow an exception in this case?
 
Hapless said:
The fact is, you can't square your belief that a woman has an absolute right to do with her body as she pleases with the possibility that she might use that right to do something you disagree with.
Click to expand...

The fact is, it is her body and she can do what she likes with it, whether or not i agree with what she is doing is completely irrelevant.

Hapless said:
Would religious fundamentalists who are pro-life tend to allow an exception in this case?
Click to expand...
Who cares...
 
Hapless said:
Ah, I'm pretending to be a prick holding a trump card. Nice. It is a vslid question, and obviously you in all your wisdom don't have an answer to it. The fact is, you can't square your belief that a woman has an absolute right to do with her body as she pleases with the possibility that she might use that right to do something you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Me in all my wisdom? Did you not read my admission of not knowing how to approach this with certainty?

Can't square my beliefs? Are you purposefully being a dipshit? Let's make this clear. I disagree with you. I think you're a vapid, anti-intellectual, anti-progressive, ignorant, stupid bag of apologies for right-wing idiocy. But you won't see me protesting your freedom of speech and your right to exercise it.
That would be absurd. No, I support your right to be as predictable and banal in your expressions as you wish.

Key lesson: Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I necessarily advocate legal action against it. So, when all is said and done, it turns out there is no sound legal reason to prohibit fetal genetic alteration, I'd still think it to be an act born out of ignorance and superficial reasoning.

Take a few minutes to let that soak in.
 
JNightshade said:
GAH! A religious leader FINALLY embraces the idea that homosexuality is biologically-based... and then concludes that we should stop it in the womb. What a f*cking idiot.
Click to expand...
so you guys are actually buying the fact that your genes determine your sexual orientation :S ? . is there some kind of article or evidence that everyone else knows about or something . i feel like im out of the loop here because a lot of people in this thread seem to be comfortable with biological determinism especially in relation to peoples sexual preference. as far as i know there is no "gay gene" just as there is no "thief" , "murderer", "artist" or "doctor" gene.
 
mindless_moder said:
so you guys are actually buying the fact that your genes determine your sexual orientation :S ? . is there some kind of article or evidence that everyone else knows about or something . i feel like im out of the loop here because a lot of people in this thread seem to be comfortable with biological determinism especially in relation to peoples sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I think it's a little absurd to think otherwise, genes determine everything about us from a physical standpoint. If genes are not determing my sexual orientation...what is?

You can't compare ones occupation( which we pick) to an uncontollable feeling of arousal or desire. One is trained and conscience the other just is. Is being attracted to women something you constatnly have remind yourself to do?
 
I don't see why people gotta hate on the homo's so much.

The reason religious people consider it "immoral" is because it does not promote procreation.
-However,ifthat was "immoral" then masturbation would also be considered "immoral", and lets face it, almost everyone masturbates, even christians, baptists, etc.

-And anyways, with today's technology we don't have to worry about our population going down because of Homosexuality because we have artificial insemination
 
Religious people don't like homosexuals for one reason: ignorance.

If it's not a part of the Book, then it's wrong. They can't accept another person's life style, a life style that represents no harm to them, so they bash it. I don't understand. It says in the Bible that if you cannot "save" a person, let them go. Maybe they should start reading their own book.
 
Hapless said:
So are you saying it's also a woman's right to choose to genetically alter her fetus while it is still in the womb?
Click to expand...

yes. Genetic altercation offers alot of problems of its own, but it should not be prohibited, only restricted in certain cases (for instance, purposefully making your baby retarted or have a third arm or something else unhealthy) I have no problem with eye/hair/skin color/immunity to genetic diseases/cloning/added brain power as long as such altercation is provided as a choice to everyone free of charge. Otherwise we'll end up with a genetic caste system like Brave New World.

And with this other issue: yes a woman should have the right to abort her fetus for any reason she chooses. She can make choices and if they are bad choices they are bad choices, it is not the descision of the government to make. I don't support aborting fetuses on the basis of eugenics, but if a woman so chooses, then let her. However, if she does she's a bigot and a fool. I also would not like any official organization to systematically tell people to abort fetus x because it has y feature, but I wouldn't go so far as to pass any laws to prevent such lunatics from abusing the system.
 
Hapless said:
So aborting a fetus out of convenience is fine, and you are not a retard for doing so, but aborting one because it might turn out to be gay makes you a retard? Fascinating.
Click to expand...
You are using a fatally flawed analogy.

"Convenience," whatever you might think of it, is a logical motivation.
Financial status and etc. can be put at risk by a child, and the child may be put at risk equivalently.
There is inherently measurable material gain in the decision.
Meanwhile, There is absolutely no good reason to abort a baby purely because it is gay, because that depends entirely on the illogical assumption that gay = inferior.
There is absolutely no gain from this, and instead some loss.

Fetuses - before consciousness or even sensation - are human tissue, but they are not individual life. The best non-arbitrary definition of individual life we have is in terms of brain function.
There is thus nothing inherently reprehensible about abortion. It is not murder if there is no brain.
Abortion is a neutral tool with beneficial results and no real downside.

What does make your shitty gay-target idea morally reprehensible is the assumption that gays are inferior.
It's morally wrong to hate for no reason.
Plus, you're slapping homophobia onto abortion and then using the stigma to say abortion is bad.

Our problem is that you are taking the morally neutral practice of abortion and turning it into a tool for racism.
Then, you actually have the balls to conclude from this spurious association that abortion must be evil.

You may as well argue that the crucifix is evil because the KKK might burn one on somebody's lawn.

So the point you glossed over is that our position is smart and yours is fundamentally not smart.
 
brink's said:
I think it's a little absurd to think otherwise, genes determine everything about us from a physical standpoint. If genes are not determing my sexual orientation...what is?

You can't compare ones occupation( which we pick) to an uncontollable feeling of arousal or desire. One is trained and conscience the other just is. Is being attracted to women something you constatnly have remind yourself to do?
Click to expand...

i wasnt really talking about occupation its just that if you can argue that genes can determine your sexual desires then they probably make artists think artistically they make murderers think with criminal intent. people aren't born with a specific sexual orientation its something that is imposed upon them by society.which is why people can change it if they wish they can "experiment". your sexual orientation is more of "mental" thing its a choice that you make sometimes very early on in life and genes are only responsible for your physical makeup . more on the suibject: http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
 
mindless_moder said:
i wasnt really talking about occupation its just that if you can argue that genes can determine your sexual desires then they probably make artists think artistically they make murderers think with criminal intent. people aren't born with a specific sexual orientation its something that is imposed upon them by society.which is why people can change it if they wish they can "experiment". your sexual orientation is more of "mental" thing its a choice that you make sometimes very early on in life and genes are only responsible for your physical makeup . more on the suibject: http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Click to expand...

So tell me, when exactly did you "choose" or "were forced by society" to become heterosexual?
 
well i didn't mean to put it that way. im just trying to say that society indirectly suggests your sexual orientation. in the past if a certain sexual orientation didn't lead to reproduction then it was frowned upon by society so the general population was more inclined towards heterosexuality.it isnt a concious descision that one makes its just a product of the environment you grow up in(you know the whole "nature vs nurture" thing).
 
mindless_moder said:
as far as i know there is no "gay gene" just as there is no "thief" , "murderer", "artist" or "doctor" gene.
Click to expand...
As far as you know there is no life outside earth. But looking at various factors and probabilities, it is very possible that life exists elsewhere.

The same way, there is more logical evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined.
 
Homosexuality is the result of genes eh? Does this mean that one or more of a gay person's ancestors was gay but married an had kids anyway?
It's weird to think about, but I guess it's possible...

I'm really leaning towards homosexuality being a choice thing. But that doesn't totally work either because I know lots of gay people would say they've been gay all their life and never chose to be so.

:\

Edit: More thoughts:

1. Some people definitely choose to be gay or bisexual. I'm sure I could if I wanted to.

2. Some don't, say they don't have a choice and are only attracted to the same sex (pff I don't really believe em)

3. Maybe it's just something that can happen to us, anyone, at some point in our life. Most likely at a young age...like a switch that just turns on because of some unknown factor.

Built-in population control? :p We could use it right about now, I think the worlds over-populated with humans already...









Editeditedit: On the topic of abortion, whatever, it's up to the mother and father...and soon them bible readers will die out and we won't have to deal with 'em anymore :D
 
Recessive genes. Take some biology classes.
 
^ Yea I thought about that too but didn't mention it...I took biology in high school and forget most of it so :p
 
if a dingo ate your gay baby would the dingo have gay pups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
morgs
TTT Fanfic - The Island
Replies
8
Views
2K
Krynn72
Krynn72
CptStern
Bush: US presence in Iraq > 50 years
Replies
32
Views
2K
CptStern
CptStern
CptStern
The Adventures of Top Gear in redneck country
Replies
25
Views
2K
CyberPitz
CyberPitz
Tollbooth Willie
The Legacy of Pesmerga: Koola and the Bitch Queen
Replies
26
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top